Re: [stir] current draft charter

["Richard Shockey" <[e-mail]>]

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Brian Rosen
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 2:16 PM
To: Richard Shockey
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [stir] current draft charter

> [RS> ] You are really going to have to re explain that what you mean 
> ENUM like delegation does not map into number delegation. Granted that 
> having dealt with ENUM for as many years as I have may have totally dulled
my
> synapses but you need to walk through that more carefully.   Ok so walk me
> through how the Canadian NANP will be separated from the US NANP and 
> individual Public Safety numbers will the separated from both.

Number delegation is now, and increasingly moving to range sizes that are
not power of 10.

Where you still get PA assignments in the US in 1000 number blocks, a
typical resell as likely  25 numbers or 5 as it is 100 or 10.   The latest
moves in the US will force the PA to do small assignments also.

Unless the delegation size is a power of 10, it doesn't map into the
delegation model of DNS with reverse-dotted zones.

You end up fully populating the tree down to the full e.164, and delegating
multiples of 1 TN rather than being able to delegate a higher level part of
the tree.
[
[RS> ]  Well what's wrong with TN level delegations?    

That is so unwieldy that you wouldn't do it - you get someone like Neustar
to maintain the entire tree and provide a provisioning interface that
handles an arbitrary sized delegation.  We could still delegate the NPAs out
of +1 to the appropriate contractors on a per nation basis, but of course,
all of the nations that share +1 have to agree on a common +1 domain
operator.  cc1enum anyone?  anyone?

Brian


_______________________________________________
stir mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir